Are We Getting A New Cannondale Supersix?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.

Moderator: robbosmans

Hexsense
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

hannawald wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:55 pm
Image

The one on the right is my 56, on the left is 54 which belongs to my friend.
That is very clear visual difference between front stretched geometry on size 54 and traditional geometry on size 56.
Cannondale Supersix Evo size 44-54 use stretched front center (via slacker HTA and more fork offset to counter-act the effect of slack HTA on trail value), 56 and larger use traditional headtube and fork geometry.
That result in 56 having shorter wheelbase than size 54. Which is a weird anomaly that doesn't happen often.
Personally, I like the geometry number of 54 more. Now, your picture also let me know that I like the look of 54 more too.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



S6ED
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:22 pm

by S6ED

chrispino wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:14 pm
Joined the club after pieceing this one together over the last month or so.
Very much loving it so far.
Very nice! Is this a Zipp stem?
Last edited by S6ED on Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

S6ED
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:22 pm

by S6ED

Dan Gerous wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:13 pm
Shimano doesn't make only Dura Ace level chains...

I'm curious, why would the hanger being outboard matter or not if the derailleur itself sits exactly where it should be? (That's a Sigeyi DM hanger by the way, I have the same but black)
Is this hanger better, for whichever reason, than the stock one?

Dan, may I also ask the weight of the stock thru axles, if you remember?

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 2298
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

S6ED wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:40 pm
Dan Gerous wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:13 pm
Shimano doesn't make only Dura Ace level chains...

I'm curious, why would the hanger being outboard matter or not if the derailleur itself sits exactly where it should be? (That's a Sigeyi DM hanger by the way, I have the same but black)
Is this hanger better, for whichever reason, than the stock one?

Dan, may I also ask the weight of the stock thru axles, if you remember?
In theory, a direct mount derailleur hanger removes one bolt/junction so it 'should' be stiffer, in theory, which can make shifting marginally better, more precise, crispier... in theory. I can't say I noticed a difference, but shifting was flawless before, it might be more noticable on lower level groupset but a 9150 Di2 rear mech is already pretty flawless/precise/crisp. Most pro teams use DM mounts for that reason although most of the them have some custom made ones that are quite bulkier for extra stiffness... in some cases they might even be too stiff and might lose their intended main functionality of being the weakest point in case of a crash, but pro teams don't care nearly as much as consumers do about damaging a derailleur or a frame.

Another advantage of this direct mount is a slight weight saving, I think the Sigeyi makes for a 10 grams lighter setup. Again, those used by EF and other teams are probably heavier than stock setups.

The biggest advantage though, a HUUUUGE one, it looks nicer! :mrgreen: A single machined part between the dropout and the derailleur body compared to a normal hanger plus a mountaing bolt plus the Shimano link just looks slicker IMO.

It doesn't apply here but for rim brake bikes with QR skewers, direct mount hangers make it easier to change the real wheel fast as it clears that area for the drive-side QR nut so it's easier to set the wheel in the dropouts really quickly, less chance of the nut getting caught or blocked in the heat of the moment in a race. Here again, it mostly matters only for pro teams.

The Cannondale bolt-on axles I weighed were 69.6gr for the pair.

S6ED
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:22 pm

by S6ED

Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:16 pm
S6ED wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:40 pm
Dan Gerous wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:13 pm
Shimano doesn't make only Dura Ace level chains...

I'm curious, why would the hanger being outboard matter or not if the derailleur itself sits exactly where it should be? (That's a Sigeyi DM hanger by the way, I have the same but black)
Is this hanger better, for whichever reason, than the stock one?

Dan, may I also ask the weight of the stock thru axles, if you remember?
In theory, a direct mount derailleur hanger removes one bolt/junction so it 'should' be stiffer, in theory, which can make shifting marginally better, more precise, crispier... in theory. I can't say I noticed a difference, but shifting was flawless before, it might be more noticable on lower level groupset but a 9150 Di2 rear mech is already pretty flawless/precise/crisp. Most pro teams use DM mounts for that reason although most of the them have some custom made ones that are quite bulkier for extra stiffness... in some cases they might even be too stiff and might lose their intended main functionality of being the weakest point in case of a crash, but pro teams don't care nearly as much as consumers do about damaging a derailleur or a frame.

Another advantage of this direct mount is a slight weight saving, I think the Sigeyi makes for a 10 grams lighter setup. Again, those used by EF and other teams are probably heavier than stock setups.

The biggest advantage though, a HUUUUGE one, it looks nicer! :mrgreen: A single machined part between the dropout and the derailleur body compared to a normal hanger plus a mountaing bolt plus the Shimano link just looks slicker IMO.

It doesn't apply here but for rim brake bikes with QR skewers, direct mount hangers make it easier to change the real wheel fast as it clears that area for the drive-side QR nut so it's easier to set the wheel in the dropouts really quickly, less chance of the nut getting caught or blocked in the heat of the moment in a race. Here again, it mostly matters only for pro teams.

The Cannondale bolt-on axles I weighed were 69.6gr for the pair.
Thanks for replying. I was not aware that the stock hanger was not direct mount, now I get it. I supose that the Sigeyi one is also designed to snap when it should. Anyone knows what brand EF are using? Speaking of the derailleur hanger, which also has to do with the rear thru axle, have you noticed any difference in terms of stiffness (attributed to the use of thru axles or otherwise) between the current Evo and the previous gen one? To be honest, I'm in fact trying to find a convincing excuse to have to buy the new frameset to replace my previous gen HiMod Disc... :lol:

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 2298
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

Personally, my previous Evos had rim brakes and had very different wheels so even though my new one feels stiffer, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much the thru-axle helps. The rear felt very different with the three different wheelsets I tried. I also have a 2014 Synapse Disc which has QR front and rear and I never had stiffness issues in the rear, but I have very stiff wheels on that bike with more spokes, thicker spokes, laced 3X. The front didn't 'feel' flexy because of the wheel but the QR was making the front rotor rub a lot more when out of the saddle. That was lessened with a DT RWS QR which is more or less the equivalent of a bolt-on skewer, but it's still not as stiff as a thru-axle.

One thing though is that the fork only has two parallel structures handling stiffness and loads of all directions. A rear triangle has two triangular structures, and they are set wider apart so independently of the hub interface, it's much easier to have a laterally stiff rear compared to a fork. Most companies have found out a rear thru-axle doesn't really make things that much stiffer, but make it easier to have a consistent rotor/caliper alignement when removing and putting the wheel back in as QR on some hubs makes a big difference in side to side alignement depending how tight you put the QR and the axle can sit not quite perfectly in the dropouts with QR, something that's physically not possible with thru-axles, so a rear thru-axle is more about making things easier for all consumers than adding stiffness. Plus, it makes more sense to use the same interface front and rear and that's what the whole industry went with, it looks less like a DIY thing to have the same interface front and back as well.

So my opinion is that thru-axles are indeed better and nicer but just that wouldn't be a deciding factor to change a bike IMO. There are many good reasons to change it though. :mrgreen:

Only Shimano have direct mount rear derailleurs so frames can't only have DM mounts as stock, otherwise they couldn't be used with SRAM and Campagnolo while all Shimano derailleurs that are direct-mount compatible come with the normal hanger part already installed. Plus, probably 99.9% of consumers don't know about direct mount hangers and couldn't care less when they do.

The EF mounts have no brand and can't be bought, an industrial metal shop machinist in Italy that doesn't really have anything to do with cycling made a bunch for the various Cannondale sponsored teams.

S6ED
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:22 pm

by S6ED

Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:48 pm
Personally, my previous Evos had rim brakes and had very different wheels so even though my new one feels stiffer, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much the thru-axle helps. The rear felt very different with the three different wheelsets I tried. I also have a 2014 Synapse Disc which has QR front and rear and I never had stiffness issues in the rear, but I have very stiff wheels on that bike with more spokes, thicker spokes, laced 3X. The front didn't 'feel' flexy because of the wheel but the QR was making the front rotor rub a lot more when out of the saddle. That was lessened with a DT RWS QR which is more or less the equivalent of a bolt-on skewer, but it's still not as stiff as a thru-axle.

One thing though is that the fork only has two parallel structures handling stiffness and loads of all directions. A rear triangle has two triangular structures, and they are set wider apart so independently of the hub interface, it's much easier to have a laterally stiff rear compared to a fork. Most companies have found out a rear thru-axle doesn't really make things that much stiffer, but make it easier to have a consistent rotor/caliper alignement when removing and putting the wheel back in as QR on some hubs makes a big difference in side to side alignement depending how tight you put the QR and the axle can sit not quite perfectly in the dropouts with QR, something that's physically not possible with thru-axles, so a rear thru-axle is more about making things easier for all consumers than adding stiffness. Plus, it makes more sense to use the same interface front and rear and that's what the whole industry went with, it looks less like a DIY thing to have the same interface front and back as well.

So my opinion is that thru-axles are indeed better and nicer but just that wouldn't be a deciding factor to change a bike IMO. There are many good reasons to change it though. :mrgreen:

Only Shimano have direct mount rear derailleurs so frames can't only have DM mounts as stock, otherwise they couldn't be used with SRAM and Campagnolo while all Shimano derailleurs that are direct-mount compatible come with the normal hanger part already installed. Plus, probably 99.9% of consumers don't know about direct mount hangers and couldn't care less when they do.

The EF mounts have no brand and can't be bought, an industrial metal shop machinist in Italy that doesn't really have anything to do with cycling made a bunch for the various Cannondale sponsored teams.
Very interesting. Let me add that I do get front rotor rub when pushing hard(ish) out of the saddle despite having thru-axle at the front. No big deal but it shows that the fork blades do flex under not much load.
Last edited by S6ED on Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

woodyvalentine
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:40 pm

by woodyvalentine

Although not supersix, sold my Systemsix himod. Got it as the warranty replacement from the supersix himod with the axs chain rub. I knew going into it that I didn't really like the bike, but got a good deal from LBS. The hanger on the outside was crap and flimsy, creaked, and came loose even with lo tite. The cockpit is heavy and poorly designed with the mount up top, and a head tube hole. The front fork was flexy and I got rotor rub from minor efforts. You could see dimples in the paint. Overall quality was poor. Sold it. Building a cervelo Caledonia 5 and it already looks miles better in terms of paint, Bb tolerance, hanger is on the inside of frame, cockpit is lighter and not ugly as sin, out front mount, better seatpost clamp design, I can go on. The Caledonia 5 is very similar in terms of purpose and geo to the supersix and seems hands down the better option. So many people trying to figure out cockpit alternatives because Cannondale couldn't get it right the first time.

hannawald
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:28 pm
Location: Czech Republic

by hannawald

Caledonia is not the same, 415mm chainstay, fork angle plus rake, 1012mm wheelbase is far from Supersix (56 size)

Supersix is by far the lightest semi aero bike as far as i know...not the frame itself but if you include seatpost, sisl2 cranks, stock headset, expander and bb bearings, overall system is very light, you just need to use different bars, i agree the stock solution is a joke.
It has won Bike of the Year Awards and things like this so the design is obviously right, rides great and definitely among the best, but i can agree that the production quality is unfortunately not the best (axs clearance issues, fork-rotor clearance issues, paint issues, seatpost clamp creaking issues..) i don't know if this has always been like this with Cannondale or they have a new factory..

tifosiman
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:48 am

by tifosiman

chrispino wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:14 pm
Joined the club after pieceing this one together over the last month or so.
Very much loving it so far.
Image
Lovely bike, very nicely done! The EF colourway is my favourite of the Supersix options

S6ED
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:22 pm

by S6ED

hannawald wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:28 am
Caledonia is not the same, 415mm chainstay, fork angle plus rake, 1012mm wheelbase is far from Supersix (56 size)

Supersix is by far the lightest semi aero bike as far as i know...not the frame itself but if you include seatpost, sisl2 cranks, stock headset, expander and bb bearings, overall system is very light, you just need to use different bars, i agree the stock solution is a joke.
It has won Bike of the Year Awards and things like this so the design is obviously right, rides great and definitely among the best, but i can agree that the production quality is unfortunately not the best (axs clearance issues, fork-rotor clearance issues, paint issues, seatpost clamp creaking issues..) i don't know if this has always been like this with Cannondale or they have a new factory..
I've owned several Cannondale bikes, the latest one being the previous gen Evo HiMod Disc, and never had such issues. But they were all relatively simple designs to manufacture; for example, my Evo has just a simple traditional seatpost clamp that can't go wrong. The new Evo attempts some advanced solutions (hiden seatpost clamp, aero head tube, etc) that pose design and manufacturing challenges. And here things can go wrong.

BlackForestRider
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:43 pm

by BlackForestRider

Sorry for the late reply. I had a few things to look after this week.
Unfortunatly its not 1990, its 2190. I must have wished it was 1990. I ordered mine :-)
Now I just need more parts: Farsports F1 is ordered. SRAM RED axs still needs to be ordered.

https://www.ciclib.de/Rahmen/Rennrad-Ra ... &c=48&p=48

trex wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:05 pm
BlackForestRider wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:47 am
Good Morning everybody,

does anybody know if the issue with the small clearance between frame and chain for SRAM 12x still exist?
Considering buying a Hi Mod frame set EF, they go for 1990€ in Germany at the moment....

Another question:

Iam 184cm tall, 89cm inseam. Normal saddle height is 80cm from the BB center.
Does anybody have an experience, will 56cm fit?

Best regards
BlackforestRider
Would you be so kind and share where is that frame offered for 1990€? Any link?
Many thanks!

BlackForestRider
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:43 pm

by BlackForestRider

Thanks a lot!

I ordered a 58. reach is Almost the Same (5mm Differenz) I can Ride it with the same BB drop like you, But without additional Spacers since my seatpost will be 2cm higher.
hannawald wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:55 pm
Image

The one on the right is my 56, on the left is 54 which belongs to my friend.

hannawald
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:28 pm
Location: Czech Republic

by hannawald

BlackForestRider wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Thanks a lot!

I ordered a 58. reach is Almost the Same (5mm Differenz) I can Ride it with the same BB drop like you, But without additional Spacers since my seatpost will be 2cm higher.
hannawald wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:55 pm
Image

The one on the right is my 56, on the left is 54 which belongs to my friend.
Be careful with the stem length! You may be confused with reach numbers, reach is measured at stack height. 58 has higher stack height and if you put spacers on 56 to achieve same stack height a measure your reach there, there will be bigger difference than 5mm...reach drops by about 3mm for every 1cm of height..

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



BlackForestRider
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:43 pm

by BlackForestRider

hannawald wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:23 pm
BlackForestRider wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Thanks a lot!

I ordered a 58. reach is Almost the Same (5mm Differenz) I can Ride it with the same BB drop like you, But without additional Spacers since my seatpost will be 2cm higher.
hannawald wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:55 pm
Image

The one on the right is my 56, on the left is 54 which belongs to my friend.
Be careful with the stem length! You may be confused with reach numbers, reach is measured at stack height. 58 has higher stack height and if you put spacers on 56 to achieve same stack height a measure your reach there, there will be bigger difference than 5mm...reach drops by about 3mm for every 1cm of height..
Thank you, Understood. That means it wil be 5mm + around 6mm (for 2cmStack) = 11mm?

The guy in the shop said, that my arms are longer then average. My armspan is 186cm qt 184cm height. Does that maybe explain to go for the 58?

Post Reply